4 ms·

Lawsuit against Meta asks if Facebook users have right to control their feeds

20 points by c420 2y ago

drjasonharrison 2y ago
I hope the answer is yes, because the current feed algorithm sucks.
jonesn11 2y ago
We need this lawsuit against X, formerly known as Twitter. That's where it's really bad.
idle_zealot 2y ago
The professor being named Zuckerberg breifly threw me for a loop. I hope the Knight Institute wins this, though it is odd to me that the right to interact with a web service using extensions or other software is even being contested. What is the alternative? Nothing is allowed to interoperate without express permission? It runs so counter to the core of personal computing. E: Oops, his name is "Zuckerman".
- gnabgib 2y ago
  > Ethan Zuckerman, a professor at the University of Massachusetts
  - userbinator 2y ago
    "Zuck" in the context of Facebook triggers the mental autocomplete.
_heimdall 2y ago
This lawsuit is ridiculous, it seems to be based on an assumption that either (a) use of social media is a fundamental right or (b) social media is a utility. From a user's perspective I do get the issue of the feed being trash, but you do already have a choice of what you see. Just don't use Facebook. Or Twitter. Or whatever other platform has an algorithmic feed that you don't like.
- sarusso 2y ago
  (b) is not that crazy to me.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  Given they do allow unfollowing it doesn’t seem ridiculous to also allow users to automate that activity. I don’t know if it’s really a legal right but just as a principle it doesn’t seem absurd on its face.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Totally agree that it seems like a reasonable feature. My only point is that it isn't a requirement, and if Facebook decides to only offer an algorithmic feed and users don't want that they can just not use Facebook. The idea of legally requiring manual feed curation effectively implies that access to Facebook is a right to be protected rather than a product offered by a for-profit business.
- idle_zealot 2y ago
  FB currently benefits from a law sheilding them from liability for what they host and show on their service. This shield comes with the classification of being a facilitator of communication and sharing of content for your users, which carries certain obligations. Among those is that users be able to filter what they can see, selectively, while using the service. Basically, (b) is true, though in a limited capacity.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    The Communications Decency Act could pretty easily be removed or revised to exclude protections once companies modify or decide how user provided content is shared. In my opinion, the 25 year old law was never reasonably meant to protect algorithmic content curation but was meant for things like blogs and forums. It seems much more reasonable to clarify that rather than assume social media is a public utility.
- swatcoder 2y ago
sarusso 2y ago
I tried the FB ad-free subscription (in EU) only to discover that what I actually wanted was a suggested stuff-free one. I hope this lawsuit can make a point.
userbinator 2y ago
I suppose it ultimately comes down to "do you have a right to close your eyes or look away?" A separate clause, though, provides immunity to software developers who create tools that “filter, screen, allow, or disallow content that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable. That sounds like it's in support of adblocking and similar practices.
cmeacham98 2y ago
First of all, here's a direct link to the complaint, which I had to dig up as it isn't linked in the article: https://knightcolumbia.org/documents/gu63ujqj8o https://knightcolumbia.org/documents/gu63ujqj8o Second of all, I would be astounded if this suit succeeds, it seems more like a publicity stunt.
xyzzy4747 2y ago
Nobody has to go on Facebook
dangmum 2y ago
[dead]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

20 points by c420 2y ago

drjasonharrison 2y ago

I hope the answer is yes, because the current feed algorithm sucks.

jonesn11 2y ago

We need this lawsuit against X, formerly known as Twitter. That's where it's really bad.

idle_zealot 2y ago

The professor being named Zuckerberg breifly threw me for a loop. I hope the Knight Institute wins this, though it is odd to me that the right to interact with a web service using extensions or other software is even being contested. What is the alternative? Nothing is allowed to interoperate without express permission? It runs so counter to the core of personal computing. E: Oops, his name is "Zuckerman".

gnabgib 2y ago
> Ethan Zuckerman, a professor at the University of Massachusetts
- userbinator 2y ago
  "Zuck" in the context of Facebook triggers the mental autocomplete.

_heimdall 2y ago

This lawsuit is ridiculous, it seems to be based on an assumption that either (a) use of social media is a fundamental right or (b) social media is a utility. From a user's perspective I do get the issue of the feed being trash, but you do already have a choice of what you see. Just don't use Facebook. Or Twitter. Or whatever other platform has an algorithmic feed that you don't like.

sarusso 2y ago
(b) is not that crazy to me.
zeroonetwothree 2y ago
Given they do allow unfollowing it doesn’t seem ridiculous to also allow users to automate that activity. I don’t know if it’s really a legal right but just as a principle it doesn’t seem absurd on its face.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Totally agree that it seems like a reasonable feature. My only point is that it isn't a requirement, and if Facebook decides to only offer an algorithmic feed and users don't want that they can just not use Facebook. The idea of legally requiring manual feed curation effectively implies that access to Facebook is a right to be protected rather than a product offered by a for-profit business.
idle_zealot 2y ago
FB currently benefits from a law sheilding them from liability for what they host and show on their service. This shield comes with the classification of being a facilitator of communication and sharing of content for your users, which carries certain obligations. Among those is that users be able to filter what they can see, selectively, while using the service. Basically, (b) is true, though in a limited capacity.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  The Communications Decency Act could pretty easily be removed or revised to exclude protections once companies modify or decide how user provided content is shared. In my opinion, the 25 year old law was never reasonably meant to protect algorithmic content curation but was meant for things like blogs and forums. It seems much more reasonable to clarify that rather than assume social media is a public utility.
swatcoder 2y ago

sarusso 2y ago

I tried the FB ad-free subscription (in EU) only to discover that what I actually wanted was a suggested stuff-free one. I hope this lawsuit can make a point.

userbinator 2y ago

I suppose it ultimately comes down to "do you have a right to close your eyes or look away?" A separate clause, though, provides immunity to software developers who create tools that “filter, screen, allow, or disallow content that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable. That sounds like it's in support of adblocking and similar practices.

cmeacham98 2y ago

First of all, here's a direct link to the complaint, which I had to dig up as it isn't linked in the article: https://knightcolumbia.org/documents/gu63ujqj8o https://knightcolumbia.org/documents/gu63ujqj8o Second of all, I would be astounded if this suit succeeds, it seems more like a publicity stunt.

xyzzy4747 2y ago

Nobody has to go on Facebook

dangmum 2y ago

[dead]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]